Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

METARIE, La. -- As New Orleans Saints quarterback Aaron Brooks sat on a bench discussing a variety of subjects, the topic turned to the simplification of the team's offense, something coach Jim Haslett said was badly needed.

"See this right here," Brooks said, pointing to a yellow placard taped to his left wrist. "It's huge."

The card was filled with numbers, followed by the corresponding offensive plays. It's nothing new by NFL standards, but it's certainly new and needed for the Saints, an offense that resembled a stumbling high-school unit at times last season.

They've had trouble getting into an offensive rhythm in large part because their system has had way too much verbiage. Under former offensive coordinator Mike McCarthy, who left for San Francisco, the Saints struggled to call in plays and get the ball snapped.

New Orleans led the league in penalty yards last season, much of that a result of terminology problems that led to pre-snap infractions, Haslett said.

Continued... http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8701894

RE: Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

:lol:

Did he stick his tongue out too ????

Prove them wrong , ever cross his mind ?? Or do we need to simplify that ???

RE: Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

Ask for another top 5 contract maybe. That might help huh Aaron? LOL Dude is retarded.

RE: Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

I read the article. The title implies that the offense has been simplified. But I haven't seen anything that indicates that there has been a reduction in either
the number or the complexity of the plays. Only that an indexing system has been put in place.

Is there any evidence that the offense has actually been simplified?

Just curious.

A second thought: If the Saints offense truly commits to running the football, defenses are going to be in big trouble. A commitment to the run is actually going to open up the passing game. Drawing 8 into the box on a consistent basis is going to open things up to man coverage and for the tight ends.

SFIAH
SFIAH

RE: Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

... this is one of the big issues I have with the coaching staff...

STOP TRYING TO MAKE BROOKS INTO FAVRE... McCarthy is gone. Let's find another angle, can't we????

Forget about the flourishment of Aaron Brooks and concentrate in the flourishment of the New Orleans Saints...

... stop than picking sides and creating friction among the players by sending some players to leadership classes, producing video montages to prove that "it's not this player's fault", and publicly reamming a guy who went in defense of a teammate...

.. make players understand that each of them is a piece of the puzzle, yet no one is indispensable...


.... but who am I kidding...

RE: Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

They aren't "simplyfying the O", its merely simplyfying the terminology. Its not to help Brooks out but to help the team! Get the play on the field quicker... (less delay of game penalties). Get the offense to the line quicker (read the defense better and more time to make adjustments). I do see more fullback useage and more play action but that is it.

RE: Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

They have stated that they are also reducing the number of reads he has to make. That's part of simplification. Instead of 4 reads now he does 2 and then looks for an outlet.

I've said it 10 times....I think Brooks is a good, likeable dude.

But....I've never heard him say that he has to get better, that he has to step up his game and lift this team up a notch. His tone is always that of embattled, unfairly blamed victim. To be fair, there is plenty of blame to go around for the mediocrity in recent years. The guy is a well paid starting QB in the NFL. The fans WANT to love him. He just seems to always act like there is no reason for the fans to be frustrated with his play.

Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I would love to hear him say "Our fans have been through alot and they know we are a team that has underachieved. I am a high profile member of an underachieving team and I need to step my game up to get us where we need to go, which is the playoffs and the SuperBowl. The fans of NO deserve a winner and it is my job to help them get one"

That's all I want. I was on the fence with him till last year when he really looked bad in several games. The amazing thing is in a game like @Tampa where he looked absolutely terrible until there were less than 5 minutes in the game. Then, he throws a few good passes and two fantastic TD passes. You're overjoyed as a fan...then you ask yourself how in the hell the guy who ran backwards and threw the ball to no one for almost 4 qrtrs did that. He really is the most confusing athlete I've ever rooted for.

This is accurate. Same format they used for Young in SF as I recall. I really liked this article, but then what fun is it without blanket statements and conspiracy theories? :roll:

Re: RE: Saints hope Brooks will flourish in the simple life
 

After I asked the question I found an article that indicates that the playbook has been streamlined.

Here is the quote:
It came from an article in the Shreveport Times:

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/...507290331/1001

The article points to an actual simplification. I'm not sure how I feel about that. Offensive complexity is designed to lead the defense into a direction ot tendency and then play counter to that tendency. Simplification may eliminate some of that misdirection.

SFIAH

I don't think the scheme is getting simpler -- its the method of calling the plays from the sideline -- now the plays are called into the huddle as a number and Brooks has a cheatsheet to turn that into the play called in the huddle.

Why did I hear a funeral march as I read that? :wink:

Was that Youngs first year ???

I think reading into the 1, 2 read thing. The problem in the past if you watch some games from last year you see Brooks drop back and with out a 1, 2 read he looks for best bet on who to throw to and then goes back into looking down the field taking time to make the call to pass. When they talk 1, 2 read its just that... You look for the 1 route then the second and dump off to the saftey route. When you read 1, 2 in an article don't assume there are only going to be 2 routes to go to it means check off then run or get rid of ball. Its not reducing the number of reads its just a system to check off... 1,2 read is the system I mean come on there isn't a 1, 2, 3, 4 read system.

The major issue is simplyfying the terminology for a play... shortens the time the play gets to the field and shortens the time for the O to get to the line and read the Defense. Last year you see Brooks getting to the line and not being able to make reads and set the blocking.

A QB never makes 4 reads before looking to run or for an outlet? Never? I'm pretty sure that I have read before that they are reducing the number of reads down to 2 and then telling AB to look for an outlet if they're covered. What are they reducing it down from if there isn't such a thing as a 3 or 4 read system?

The better question would be why do you hear it everytime AB's name is mentioned. Call your local psychologist, dude.

Is this relevant or just a way of making yet another negative comment about AB's intelligence or lack thereof? Maybe, if they'd have done this AB's first year like they did (assuming they did) in Young's first year, we'd have made the playoffs in the last 4 years.

You know what I hear everytime I hear Ab's name? Sometimes I hear circus music so you are wrong. :wink: I guess I should be more respectful of such a great QB, what am I thinking? He has given me no reason whatsoever not to be 100% supportive of him. Thanks for showing me the light Scotty.

You're welcome!

Why do people change things are read into posts that aren't there... I have never used the word never. Its not reducing the reads its making them simple its indication that on this play the first route you look for is this one... if not then go to this one... if not go here. 2 recievers then lets start cutting all the WR's in camp. 1 2 read... the way you describe it if we use 4 wr set then only but all the DBs on Horn and Stallworth to hell with everyone else.

Well, Euph, you said there is not a 1,2,3,4 read system. I'm taking IS NOT as never done because it doesn't exist according to you. You don't have to use the word to use it's meaning...but this is off topic.

I take a 3 read play to mean that immediately following the snap there is player 1 to check. If P1 is covered, then check P2. If P2 is covered, then check P3. If P3 is covered, then find an outlet.

P1 will not always be Horn or Stallworth. It could be a TE or RB depending on the play.

Thus, rather than making him go through 3 or 4 progressions before deciding to run or dump off, they are limiting this to 2. That seems to me to one simplification of the process. There are others that they have installed.

I have never been a QB on a team so explain to me where I am wrong in my "guessing" about how this works.

Yes you have. LMAO. :)

LOL, 1, 2 read just is principal. that means 1,2 3, 4, and five. 1-2 is just shorter terminology for 1-2-3-4. Don't take things to literal. So what you are saying is every pass play there is going to be 1-2 run or throw away... that won't happen unless he is getting pressure or the 1-2 reads is there. If you got 4 options to go to you check them all off the way they were designed. I think what they should have said was more accountable check off system is what Sheppard is implying.

Dude - you guys are confusing me.

1,2 stands for 1,2,3,4,5? If x is greater tha Y and less than Sullivan, does AB = poo?

No, Sullivan = poo

Don't go there. I already had to give a dissertation on this very subject. :wink:

.. yeah, the 1-2 read... they probably did it with Steve Young... and must likely they did it with Marino, Elway, Montana, Tarkenton, Kelly, Bradshaw, Fouts... heck I bet neither Unitas or Starr ever had more than 2 reads... and Slingin' Sammy will tell you " *reads*??? We had no *&%$#@ reads... coach'd say ' throw it or run it, #$%$#@'"...

Does Hasbeen then become the intestinal track that brought us the poo or does Hasbeen become the sewer line in which the poo keeps going ???